Microhistory, first developed in the 1970s, is the study of the past on a very small scale applying zoom-in methodology. Although microhistory had been introduced to Korea during the late 1990s, there still exists much of misunderstanding and confusions surrounding its nature. Microhistory is to be distinguished from the monographs which deal with petty subject, or from the history of everyday life, and from the case studies. In the field of the history of medicine, there are not many microhistories proper. Several works that claim to utilize microhistorical approach, could not be categorized as microhistory because they carry strong characteristics of macrohistory, specifically those of the disciplinary history or the case studies. The well known work of Harold J. Cook, Trials of an Ordinary Doctor, is not an exception. These studies fail to materialize the critical mind of microhistory that pursues to write a history from below and to restore the agency of obscure people. However, Guido Ruggiero's "The Strange Death of Margarita Marcellini," David Cressy's Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale clearly demonstrate the attributes, characteristics, and methodologies of microhistory. These studies well display the emphasis of microhistory, which reveal the complexity of early modern medicine, and the complicated function of individual relationships within each and every social setting. Recently, some scholars begin to suggest that the rigid definition of microhistory should be softened, arguing that there could be various types of microhistory. The history of medicine has many advantage of aptly applying many virtues of microhistory: the de-territoriality of diseases, the peculiar elements of the training and practice in hospitals and medical schools which call for anthropological survey, and the possibility of utilizing doctor's records that contain the confessions of the patients. Also, medical historians need to expand the scope of medical provider for their analysis, incorporating pseudo-medical doctor. The essential property of microhistory should be found in its request for various new subjects and fresh perspectives.
*Historiography ; *History of Medicine ; *Physicians ; Republic of Korea

This paper aims to redress serious imbalances in the research on ginseng. Most accounts of ginseng treat it as an exclusively East Asian commodity, and are dominated by the natural sciences. Ginseng, however, was much discussed in England and America in the early modern period: the discussion encompassed not only botanical and medical interests, but also discourses on the commercial marketability of ginseng; ginseng was also an item that embodied European prejudices, symbolizing perceived 'differences' between the West and East. As such, ginseng was an 'indigenous' item of 'the East' that was much discussed in 'the West', but one that resisted assimilation into its systems of knowledge.
Americas* ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Botany ; England* ; Humans ; Natural Science Disciplines ; Panax* ; Prejudice

This article demonstrates the medicinal usage of ginseng in the West from 1660 to 1914. Asian[Korea] ginseng was first introduced into England in the early 17th century, and North American ginseng was found in the early 18th century. Starting from the late 17th century doctors prescribed ginseng to cure many different kinds of ailments and disease such as: fatigue general lethargy, fever, torpidity, trembling in the joints, nervous disorder, laughing and crying hysteria, scurvy, spermatic vessel infection, jaundice, leprosy, dry gripes and constipation, strangury, yellow fever, dysentery, infertility and addictions of alcohol, opium and tobacco, etc. In the mid-18th century Materia Medica began to specify medicinal properties of ginseng and the patent medicines containing ginseng were widely circulated. However, starting in the late 18th century the medicinal properties of ginseng began to be disparaged and major pharmacopoeias removed ginseng from their contents. The reform of the pharmacopoeia, influenced by Linnaeus in botany and Lavoisier in chemistry, introduced nomenclature that emphasized identifying ingredients and active constituents. Western medicine at this period, however, failed to identify and to extract the active constituents of ginseng. Apart from the technical underdevelopment of the period, the medical discourses reveal that the so-called chemical experiment of ginseng were conducted with unqualified materials and without proper differentiation of various species of ginseng.
Americas* ; Botany ; Chemistry ; Constipation ; Crying ; Dispensatories ; Dysentery ; England ; Fatigue ; Fever ; Hysteria ; Infertility ; Jaundice ; Joints ; Leprosy ; Lethargy ; Materia Medica ; Nonprescription Drugs ; Opium ; Panax* ; Scurvy ; Tobacco ; Yellow Fever